2006-07-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6 Ms. Lynn Heetderks, BAR member, said she thinks it is a bad idea to consider what is going to go in when considering demolitions. She said there is no guarantee of what is going to go in following a demolition. She said you would have the possibility of loss of an historic structure and not having what was presented be built. Mr. Brown said he feels there are legitimate concerns in the context of a complete demolition. He said there are two aspects: historic preservation, which we are given tools to protect, and design review to assure that new construction is compatible. Mr. Brown said a complete demolition seems to rise and fall on its own merits. He suggested we look at it differently in the context of a partial demolition as it is as much an alteration as it is a demolition. He said the ordinance currently does not provide for this, but if it is thought that this would be helpful, the ordinance could say that in partial demolitions that necessitate renovation, it would be reasonable for the BAR or Council to say that when the demolition application is made, the applicant should present how the portion being preserved would be compatible with the new construction. Mr. Brown said a separate question is if demolition begins can the City require what was approved to be completed. He said that would be very difficult. Mr. Wolf questioned at what point do you effectively lose the continuity of the block or streetwall when you remove part of an existing structure. Dr. Brown asked BAR members and Council if they would be comfortable considering what comes next in a partial demolition request. Mr. Lynch said he wanted to clarify that if there is an approved design, the applicant cannot just build something else, it would have to be approved. He said the BAR is a more qualified body to make those decisions than Council. He said he would prefer to have the BAR, which has expertise, give guidance to Council. He said there is also the issue of moving buildings, and he said what comes next is important and does affect the fabric. Mr. Brown said that in partial demolition, plans, though not final plans, could be required, which would include location, width, height, and orientation to the surrounding area and the remaining portion of the building. Mr. Caravati said the City should look at this issue in a progressive manner and look to the future and find better ways to do it. Ms. Hamilton asked if the BAR looks at architecture only, or does it consider stormwater and environmental issues. Mr. Wolf said the BAR can do a modern, contextual response, but other issues, such as the type of housing or whether workforce opportunities are provided, are outside of the purview of the BAR. Ms. Heetderks asked what constitutes partial demolition, and Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Planner in Neighborhood Development Services, said she will have to check. Ms. Heetderks said she does not want to consider what comes next, and prefers a stand alone, historic review. Mr. Knight said he agrees with Mr. Brown’s comments about a partial versus total demolition. Ms. Adams said he would favor making a determination on a case by case basis. Mr. Tremblay said yes, he would be comfortable looking at what comes next in a partial demolition. Mr. Coiner said he would not be comfortable looking at what comes next in a partial demolition.